Sunday, January 25, 2009

Welcome to Stalinist Britain, Tovarich

Is there no limit to the authoritarianism and incompetence of the Labour Party?

This is the government which invaded two sovereign countries, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people, on completely trumped-up grounds.

This is the government which created an immigration free-for-all after coming to power, which may yet result in a far-Right backlash.

This is the government which wishes to implement compulsory ID cards for all citizens, supposedly to control the 'immigration' and 'terrorism' problems they themselves have created.

This is the government which plans to eavesdrop on the personal correspondence of every person in the UK, by storing all of it in a giant database administered by a private company.

This is the government which allowed the police to arrest an opposition MP in the House of Commons, just for embarrassing it over its immigration policy.

This is the government which has rigged the tax and benefit system to punish married couples, as part of a wider attempt to destroy marriage and the family.

This is the government which knowingly presides over an epidemic of false rape and child abuse allegations, as part of this same war against men and families.

This is the government which seeks to demonise male sexuality through draconian anti-prostitution and anti-pornography laws, all the while deliberately lying about the evidence.

This is their latest outrage:

Absent fathers who refuse to pay child support will lose their passports under 'draconian' new plans

Unprecedented plans to give bureaucrats the power to revoke people’s driving licences and passports without going through the courts will be unveiled this week.

Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell will announce the far-reaching proposals on Tuesday as part of a new crackdown on absent fathers who refuse to pay for the upkeep of their children.

Officials in charge of pursuing them for child maintenance arrears would win the right to bypass judges and ban them from driving or travelling abroad at the stroke of a pen.

A legal expert said last night that the ‘draconian’ plans would give State officials the right to curtail people’s freedom of movement and would therefore breach human rights legislation. There are also fears that other civil servants will eventually be given the same sweeping powers.

Currently, officials at the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission have to apply to the courts when they want to punish absent parents by cancelling their driving licence or passport.

But under the new system, defaulters would simply receive notification from the CMEC that they could no longer drive or travel abroad.

Smith and Harman's war against men is being stepped up a gear. Serious human rights violations seem to be absolutely fine by them, as long as they are happening to middle-class white men, that evil oppressor class. The right of the state to monitor and intervene in the private lives of innocent citizens is assumed by this cadre of ex (and possibly current) Marxists. The infinite growth of state power is being relentlessly pursued.

This government has to be stopped. We need a general election now.


Miss Ondrya said...

This type of legislation also exist in the US, I believe. That's where they get it from of course.

Europe and the US are like two communicating vessels: we import statist family law from them and they import statist economic policy from us.

Mark said...

Heads up, Heretic...
It speaks volumes that they don't allow comments for that article.

Also, more rebuttal material. This from one of the world's leading economists

Coffee Catholic said...

How stupid can they get? If you revoke a man's license how can he drive to work to help "pay for the upkeep" of his children? Durrrr...

Anonymous said...

Hi Heretic,

Not for a comment to Stalinist Britain, but any use as an article or you?...

First the story*, then the odds calculation

Now let's see. A circle of 150ft radius has a perimeter of
Pi x D
= 3.142 * 300ft
= 942.5ft
Let's consider the vertical plane first and be generous and say the guy had a large face that took up 1 ft of that perimeter. Further, it seems reasonable that even if she exhibited a reckless rather than murderous disregard for gun safety she might have been holding the gun such that it pointed SOMEWHERE in front of her toes to somewhere in front of vertical, so let's say she was holding it in roughly the 1/3 of the circle closest to him.

SO, considering the vertical plane ONLY, the chances of hitting him by accident are approximately...
1 in (942.5 / 3)
= 1 in 316

However, since it's no good firing at the right height if you also fire off to one side, we need to factor in the horizontal plane too:
The circle size is the same 150ft radius, so same 942.5ft perimeter, but his face is not as wide as it is tall. Again, being generous, let's say 9 inches wide or 3/4 of a foot, and let's also assume she's negligent rather than murderous and is again holding the gun in the 1/3 of the circle closest to him.

The chance, then, of pointing the gun in exactly the right direction in JUST the horizontal plane are:
3/4 in (942.5 / 3)
1 in

To get the chance that she pointed the gun in exactly the right direction both up and down AND side to side then, we multiply the two chances together
1 in 316 * 1 in 419
= 1 in 132,404

But even that number's not high enough because the shot has to be timed so that it doesn't hit a door pillar or, with a .22 bullet at that range, one of the windows at sufficient angle to stop it, so let's say at least a fifth of the time he'd be saved by that, so we need to increase our number by 20%
= 1 in 165,505, perhaps less a very small amount for the tiny likelihood that the shot actually was going to miss but she gets an unlucky (or lucky?!) deflection. Let's say a 1 in 160,000 accident then. ...not of the general population, but of people out firing guns to, er, get their husband's attention.

So in summary then...

Far from a 'random' fireball mess
It seems we have a murderess.

Note also...
1) that 'A Friend' in the comments contradicts her claim of having no motive
2) that the MSM has no mention of this case. Are such cases now so common as to not even warrant a mention?



*(Search for 'Linda Abbott' and 'Millington' if the link doesn't work)

steve said...

Incase anyone missed it, there was an interesting piece on Harriet Harmon (minister for women), on last nights newsnight (thursday, feb 20).

Basically she says women are going to suffer more than men during the recession, and that men are to blame.

Newsnight counter Harmons claims by citing official statistics which suggest women are infact doing better than men in the labour market.

15 minute piece:

Anonymous said...

Harman must mean all those nasty menz involved in trafficking


Steve said...

Hi Heretic, I cant find an email address to contact you but I really wanted to let you and your blog readers know about another (unrelated) piece, also from newsnight (tuesday, march 10th 2009). I think it will be viewable for 7 days.

It concerns popular writer and journalist Julie Myreson, who has written a new book about her son's addition to cannabis when he was a teenager.

This woman (and mother?) is a respected journalist, and yet she has seemingly written a book with total disregard for the feelings or future of her own son.

here its is (15 minutes in):

A similar lack of judgement happened a few years ago with another female writer and journalist, Anne Atkins, who fooled her teenage son into thinking she was herself a teenage girl, on a social networking site, and then went and wrote a piece on it for the Daily Mail, seeing nothing at all wrong with her actions.

This is a must read. and goes to show just how low a level a women/mother can drop to:

This has happened to me with my own mother. Sensitive information which I would have rather have been kept within the family has been told other people by my mother, without my consent, or even my knowledge.

These things include very sensitive information about past operations.

Not only that, but I was witness to a telephone conversation between my mother and one of her female work collegues recently, where the collegue had been assaulted by her teenage daughter. My mother then casually told the other woman that I (her son) had hit her too.

I have never hit my mother.

Can we trust the judgement of women and mothers? can we trust them to even tell the truth? How common are these situations?